Thanks for covering the topic, however, i wish some time would have been devoted to the medical risks associated with circumcision (aside from loss of potential pleasure centers). Infants newly circumcised penises are regularly in close contact with feces and urine until they heal. Newborns do not have a fully developed immune system- this seems like an awfully risky combination. this risk would be significantly lower once the child is a bit older (should he choose to have it done). I wish the statistics for complications associated with infection (and potential for botched circumcisions) would have been brought up as a counterpoint to the doctors assertions of medical benefits.I'd also like to point out that the doctor did not adequately detail why the HIV studies in Africa are controversial. As a scientist (not a doctor) it is clear to me that there are several problems with extrapolating this data to the western world... 1. The subjects were circumcised as adults (not infant), 2. the genetics of the population are dramatically different than our own- perhaps making them more/less susceptible to certain infections, 3. the sexual norms differ, (promiscuity etc) 4. the lack of education and understanding about the disease in Africa is staggering (most americans recognize the danger of unprotected sex)- for these reasons it is unlikely that the findings of reduction in HIV transmission would necessarily apply here.I also take issue with the doctors assertion of lower penile cancer rates- if you include cancer of the "shaft" (not included in the study he was referring to)- any so called benefit of circumcision statistically disappears. One must really have to look at the parameters of each study- thus far i have seen little compelling medical evidence for circumcision. I wish the doctor had been a little more well versed in the literature and that the medical risks would have been addressed.